« What is to be Done? | Main | Hotel Justice Souter »


Jeff Hull

"A second problem with the fair compensation test is that large property owners usually do better in the litigation over compensation than do small owners."

Usually do better? How about, always do better? I daresay most small property owners facing this sort of condemnation proceeding have no money at all to pay for legal representation. It would run into thousands of dollars. All the cards are held by the big developer, who has legal resources and friends in high places. Justice O'Connor had it exactly right: it is the little guy who will be pushed around by this ruling.

Richard Lawrence Cohen

It's great to see Americans on both sides of the political spectrum rallying against this injustice. I just hope that it doesn't get relegated to the extremes on both ends. On the face of it, it should be an issue that could galvanize ordinary people.

From the liberal perspective, I'll say this: for the past generation, conservatives have been scaring voters into thinking that the wicked liberal pro-government side was going to take away their guns. Now a conservative court has said it's okay to take away their homes and small businesses.


If I read the split correctly, Richard, it's Ginsburg / Stevens / Breyer / Souter & Kennedy that were the majority in this decision, with dissents by e.g. Thomas and Scalia. And the outrage at this kind of spectre of loss of property and quiet enjoyment expectations is truly across partisan lines.

Michael H.

Hi G&H
Thank you for linking to my blog.
I think that there is a real need for a better way for firms to acquire large blocks of land instead of going to the legisture and asking for eminent domaine. As many commenters pointed out, the "fair price" really isn't fair unless both parties are happy and that isn't the case here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad